Madras High Court
S.Sudha vs Periyasamy on 24 June, 2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN
Crl.O.P.No.9238 of 2015
and MP No.1 of 2015
1. S.Sudha
2. G.Suresh
... Petitioner /Respondent
-Vs-
1. Periyasamy
2. Mariappan
3. Thangaraj
4. Sakthivel
5. Rangasathan
6. Govindhan
7. Chinnakunji
8. Raji
9. Kanniappan
10. Alagesan
11. Murugan
12. Gandhi
13. Raju
14. Manoharan
15. Jayavel
16. Shanmugam
17.Rukku
18. Mathu
19. Ratna
20. Sathya
21. Yasotha
22. Dhanammal
23. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Harur Division, Harur .. Respondents
2
Prayer: Criminal Original petition filed under Section 482 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, to order transferring the S.C.No.146 of 2014,
pending before the District and Sessions Court, Dharmapuri to the
Special Court under the S.C and SC (PA) Act, 1989, Salem for
Trial.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rathinam
For Respondent : Mr.M.Selvam for R1 to R9
R13 to R22
Mr.T.M.Pappiah
for R10, 11, 12
ORDER
This Criminal Original petition has been filed
seeking to transfer the S.C.No.146 of 2014, pending before the
District and Sessions Court, Dharmapuri to the Special Court
under the S.C and SC (PA) Act, 1989, Salem.
2. The case of the petitioners is that there was an
intercaste marriage held between the petitioners on 21.04.2010.
The 1st petitioner belongs to Most backward community and 2nd
petitioner belongs to Scheduled caste. Initially, without knowing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the caste of the 2nd petitioner, the 1st petitioner's family
supported their marriage. After they came to know about the
caste of the 2nd petitioner, prevented her from taking water
from the public well and also harassed the 2nd petitioner by using
her caste name. Therefore, a complaint was given by the 2nd
petitioner before the respondent police and an FIR was
registered against 22 accused persons in Crime No.234 of 2013 for
an offence under Section 147, 323, 506(i) IPC and 3(1) (XIV) of SC
& ST (POA) Act, 1989.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the accused persons are politically and socially
very much influential people and there is a life threat to the
petitioner and therefore, prays this Court to transfer the
proceedings from Dharmapuri to Salem.
4. The learned Counsel for Government (Crl. Side)
submitted that the trial has already been commenced in this case
and the same is pending for judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5. This Court has carefully considered the
submissions made on either side and also perused the materials.
6. On perusal of the records shows that the
accused persons/Respondents have filed Crl.OP.No.15815 of 2015
seeking to quash the proceedings pending against them in
S.C.No.146 of 2014 and this Court by an order has passed the
following order:-
5.The grounds raised in the quash petition is that
during the year 2013, there was a dispute pertaining
to pathway leading to Mariamman Temple. The 1st
petitioner being the Village Gounder, along with
other villagers went to the defacto complainant's
house to resolve the dispute but due to wordy
argument, the father in law of the defacto
complainant assaulted the petitioners. Therefore,
the villagers wanted to take action against the
defacto complainant and her family members for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
showing disrespect to the Oor Gounder, However,
the defacto complainant in order to avoid adverse
action taken against her family members had given a
false complaint against them on 22.06.2013. The said
complaint has been given only as a pre-emptive
measure. The further ground is that the complaint
was referred to the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO)
for peace committee meet and the RDO conducted
peace committee meeting on 06.07.2013 and certain
resolutions were made in the presence of the defacto
complainant and the petitioners. The defacto
complainant refused to sign the resolution made in
Na.Ka.No.4323 of 2013/A2 dated 16.07.2013,
thereafter, has come out with the said complaint.
The further ground is that the defacto complainant
had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.20303 of 2013
before this Court to take severe action against the
petitioners and other accused and the same is
pending before this Court. Further ground raised by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the petitioners is that the defacto complainant has
made only a general and omnibus allegation and no
specific allegation has been made against each of the
petitioners. The final report also does not disclose
any that specific communication made against the
victims and thereby, he would seek to quash the
proceedings.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.
Side) would submit that the petitioners belong to the
upper class community. The defacto complainant
had married one Suresh, who belongs to their
community. Coming to know that the said Suresh,
who belongs to their community has married the said
Sudha, who belongs to S.C. community, the
petitioners have abused the said Sudha and also
refused to accept the temple contribution from them
and they have also ex-communicated Sudha and her
family.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
7.There is no representation for the 2nd
respondent / defacto complainant.
8.Perusal of materials shows the defacto
complainant and her family members were abused by
the petitioners and that the defacto complainant and
her family members were also ex-communicated
from the Village. All the grounds raised by the
petitioners are factual in nature and that the
petitioners have not raised any legal grounds to
quash the proceedings.
9.In the opinion of the Court, the petition
lacks merits and deserved to be dismissed.
10. It is a case of the year 2014, hence,
learned Principal District Judge, Sessions Court,
Dharmapuri, is hereby directed to accord priority to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the case and complete the trial as expeditiously as
possible, preferably, within a period of six months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
6. In view of the order passed by this Court in Crl.O
No.15815 of 2015 dated 29.01.2021, directing the Principal
District and Sessions Court, Dharmapuri to dispose of the pending
S.C.No.146 of 2014 and also considering the submission made by
the learned Counsel for Government (Crl. Side), this Court is not
inclined to transfer the case at this stage and accordingly, this
Criminal Original petition stands dismissed. Consequently, the
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
24.06.2021
rka
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
To
1. The learned Principal District and Sessions Court, Dharmapuri
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
V.BHAVANI SUBBAROYAN.,J
rka
Crl.O.P.No.9238 of 2015
and MP No.1 of 2015
24.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
